Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[e=mc2]

Not only am I unable to reconcile evolution (whose evidence I can't deny) with scriptures, I am also unable to reconcile it with the concept of a god who is actively involved in the events of this planet. In my mind the only type of god there is possibly room for is one that set the universe (and perhaps life) in motion and then left it alone to fend for itself. Whether such a being exists, well, perhaps we will know someday.

I have been preparing my evolution lecture series as it relates to Mormonism for my You Tube videos. I shall be producing them this weekend.

And your definition of evolution being what, exactly? Are you referring to Darwin's theory that life came from random, undirected, chance processes and events? The fossil record doesn't really support that, although you may have heard such. What fossil records there are support something else entirely. The Cambrian explosion of life shows entire genera being brought into existence at roughly the same time - this is opposite what the theory of evolution leads us to expect.

This is an *incorrect* understanding of evolution. I am producing a series of videos on evolution and Mormonism I will do them this weekend. You have some problematic understandings of evolution. I think my videos can help you out. Honestly.

[littlechild]

I thought the following would be a good article to add to this topic.

Edit: Changed " " to "B )"

I understand. I've been exposed to these concepts. First they want to make it clear that ANY objection to Darwinism is based upon fairy tales and fanciful imagination, due to (supposedly) an emotional, irrational attachment to religion. They take the viewpoint that any dissent from Darwin is religiously motivated.

It ain't necessarily so.

A lot of pro Darwinists accuse ID of being a sneaky way of getting God into the debate, but ID doesn't address the identity of the intelligence in intelligent design. It reasons strictly from the scientific evidence. It addresses only what we can reasonably infer from the physical realities we see around us. This is more than evolution theorists do.

The second point I'd like to make is the attempt to make it seem that we are arguing over the definition of theory, and whether we can call pro - Darwinist philosophy a 'fact'. I propose that we keep our terms simple. When I use the word theory, I mean the traditional definition - a working hypothesis, something unproven by the evidence.

I know some Darwinists like to add authority and weight to their claims that just isn't there. They like to point to 'overwhelming data' - but the conclusions they are drawing from the data are just as fanciful as any creationist could possibly come up with. Darwinists accuse creationists of 'filling the gaps with God', but what do Darwinists fill the gaps with? Naturalism. Scientific materialism. Consider that their belief in the ability of inert materials to spring to life and self-organize into ever more complex living things, in a random, undirected, purposeless fashion, is a figment of their over active imaginations. It might as well be, the proof of this conclusion has yet to be found in the real world.

And thirdly, you don't have to be religious or a creationist to support the concept of ID. This is just a red herring the neo-Darwinists toss in the mix to stave off their inevitable confrontation with reality.

[e=mc2]

littlechildThe evidence now at the microbiological level demonstrates absolutely zero ability to evolve anywhere through 'natural selection.'

This is so patently false I cannot even fathom someone saying this. I seriously suggest Ken Miller's outstanding book Finding Darwin's God. He shows the evidence. He shows the evidence.What a GREAT THREAD! Thanks all yous guys and gals for presenting your ideas! I amgoing to glean the comments here and use them as a way to produce my videos on evolution. THANK YOU! I'll let you know when I finish them up.

[littlechild]

discovery.org is a religious website that tries to hide that it is a religious website. Please provide a citation from a biological journal, or at least a site without bias, that supports your claim.

Seelke doesn't have a paper on his bio that was published in a Biology journal.

OK, then Darwinism is a naturalistic philosophy that tries to hide that it is a naturalistic philosophy. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.

At the very least, intelligent design is a more adequate explanation for the existence of irreducible complexity than any neo-Darwinian explanation can attain. Darwinism has serious hurdles to overcome in that it can't prove that evolutionary forces have produced a single benefical morphological advantage at any time to any creature, nor can it agree on a single phylogenetic tree which would demonstrate that Darwin was on the right track when he said we were all descended from a common ancestor. Science should advance us to solid answers, not prolong the questions. The more we study Darwinist theory, the more questions arise, and the less able we are to come up with a reasonable Tree of Life that satisfies evolutionary claims.

[littlechild]

This is so patently false I cannot even fathom someone saying this. I seriously suggest Ken Miller's outstanding book Finding Darwin's God. He shows the evidence. He shows the evidence.What a GREAT THREAD! Thanks all yous guys and gals for presenting your ideas! I amgoing to glean the comments here and use them as a way to produce my videos on evolution. THANK YOU! I'll let you know when I finish them up.

If you think its false, you have failed to listen. It's a simple science experiment, could have and should have been done by Darwinists long ago. If their theory had been correct, it should have been demonstrated to be correct. Yet the longer the experiment runs, the more it proves Darwin had it wrong.

[e=mc2]

OK, then Darwinism is a naturalistic philosophy that tries to hide that it is a naturalistic philosophy. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink. At the very least, intelligent design is a more adequate explanation for the existence of irreducible complexity than any neo-Darwinian explanation can attain. Darwinism has serious hurdles to overcome in that it can't prove that evolutionary forces have produced a single benefical morphological advantage at any time to any creature, nor can it agree on a single phylogenetic tree which would demonstrate that Darwin was on the right track when he said we were all descended from a common ancestor. Science should advance us to solid answers, not prolong the questions. The more we study Darwinist theory, the more questions arise, and the less able we are to come up with a reasonable Tree of Life that satisfies evolutionary claims.

I have many series of videos discussing these topics. I am on the way to producing many more. Perhaps these might help. You are simply wrong on all of this. Fundamentally and seriously flawed with it. No offense intended.http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheBac...amp;view=videos

If you think its false, you have failed to listen. It's a simple science experiment, could have and should have been done by Darwinists long ago. If their theory had been correct, it should have been demonstrated to be correct. Yet the longer the experiment runs, the more it proves Darwin had it wrong.

I have listened carefully along with reading many, MANY texts, and Darwin has simply not been proven wrong by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect we need to seriously look at where, how and why he has been proven wrong from your take ofthings.

[littlechild]

This is so patently false I cannot even fathom someone saying this. I seriously suggest Ken Miller's outstanding book Finding Darwin's God. He shows the evidence. He shows the evidence.What a GREAT THREAD! Thanks all yous guys and gals for presenting your ideas! I amgoing to glean the comments here and use them as a way to produce my videos on evolution. THANK YOU! I'll let you know when I finish them up.

If you look carefully at that evidence, you undoubtedly will find that it does not prove a single thing about Darwinism. Get clear about what we are saying here.

Morphological = pertaining to form.

Has he shown a morphological change?

Beneficial = of survival advantage to the organism?

Fruit flies gaining wings should enhance the life of the fruit fly by being functional. They shouldn't droop purposelessly to the side and lead to the premature death of the insect by making it too heavy to fly.

Change = the sort of change that would lead one species to become another form, such as gorillas to humans or dinosaurs to birds.

There is no such evidence anywhere and I defy you or Ken Miller to produce it.

[J.S. Mill]

OK, then Darwinism is a naturalistic philosophy that tries to hide that it is a naturalistic philosophy. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.

At the very least, intelligent design is a more adequate explanation for the existence of irreducible complexity than any neo-Darwinian explanation can attain. Darwinism has serious hurdles to overcome in that it can't prove that evolutionary forces have produced a single benefical morphological advantage at any time to any creature, nor can it agree on a single phylogenetic tree which would demonstrate that Darwin was on the right track when he said we were all descended from a common ancestor. Science should advance us to solid answers, not prolong the questions. The more we study Darwinist theory, the more questions arise, and the less able we are to come up with a reasonable Tree of Life that satisfies evolutionary claims.

What, exactly, does intelligent design explain? How is "God did it" any more of an explanation than "Just because"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I haven't read the whole thread but simply wanted to point out, if no one else has, that I don't really expect the "scriptures" to "reconcile" with "evolution," nor do I see a reason why one should expect such a thing.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

OK, then Darwinism is a naturalistic philosophy that tries to hide that it is a naturalistic philosophy.

Where on this earth are you getting such howlers as this?!

[LifeOnaPlate]

What, exactly, does intelligent design explain? How is "God did it" any more of an explanation than "Just because"?

Replace God with evolution and you've got the same conundrum, though. How is "evolution did it" any more of an explanation than "Just because"?

[e=mc2]

I haven't read the whole thread but simply wanted to point out, if no one else has, that I don't really expect the "scriptures" to "reconcile" with "evolution," nor do I see a reason why one should expect such a thing.

I think they do far better than many assume. This is why I am going to make some videos on this for my You Tube site. Truly..... I have already showed that to believe in evolution I have not found it necessary to become an atheist as Richard Dawkins does. I am a perfectly intellectually satisfied Mormon with my beliefs and with the evidences of evolution. The real evolution, not the characatures I am seeing on this thread.

If you look carefully at that evidence, you undoubtedly will find that it does not prove a single thing about Darwinism. Get clear about what we are saying here. Morphological = pertaining to form.Has he shown a morphological change? Beneficial = of survival advantage to the organism? Fruit flies gaining wings should enhance the life of the fruit fly by being functional. They shouldn't droop purposelessly to the side and lead to the premature death of the insect by making it too heavy to fly. Change = the sort of change that would lead one species to become another form, such as gorillas to humans or dinosaurs to birds. There is no such evidence anywhere and I defy you or Ken Miller to produce it.

You have a deal. I will show you ENORMOUS evidences...... absolutely astonishing NEW materials, in just the last 30 years, within my lifetime.

[J.S. Mill]

Replace God with evolution and you've got the same conundrum, though. How is "evolution did it" any more of an explanation than "Just because"?

Because there's a clear mechanism. It takes facts we know about the world (genetic inheritance, differential fitness, and scarcity of resources), and shows how, if put together, they can lead to a previously-unexplained phenomenon.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

The more we study Darwinist theory, the more questions arise, and the less able we are to come up with a reasonable Tree of Life that satisfies evolutionary claims.

O.K., sincerely..... I am absolutely seriously curious. What are you reading? Will you honestly share some ofthe sources you are reading for me so I can see where you are coming from and why you are so absolutely out of touch with scientific evidences and reality of evolution? This last week I have read 3 books (yes, I know, it's only Wednesday), and I find absolutely none of this silliness in them. NONE of it. Who, honestly are you reading?

[e=mc2]

littlechild

When I use the word theory, I mean the traditional definition - a working hypothesis, something unproven by the evidence.

Ken Miller proved in court that theory is evidence of facts. The germ "theory" of disease is not unproven, yet it is still a theory. The theory of gravitation is "only a theory," yet it is a fact also. Evolution is both theory and fact. Theory does not mean a wild unproven guess. Relativity theory has been so absolutely demonstrated that it is a fact, yet it is also a theory. Evolution is a proven theory and proven fact. The evidences are absolutely astoundingly abundant, as I will show in my videos.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Because there's a clear mechanism. It takes facts we know about the world (genetic inheritance, differential fitness, and scarcity of resources), and shows how, if put together, they can lead to a previously-unexplained phenomenon.

Why though? None of this, even if taken as fact, would preclude a God in any way.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

The Cambrian explosion of life shows entire genera being brought into existence at roughly the same time - this is opposite what the theory of evolution leads us to expect.

Fundamentally false. Oh my gosh which creationist drivvle have you been brainwashed into?!

[J.S. Mill]

No scientist thinks evolution disproves every possible conception of God. That doesn't give intelligent design any explicative power, though. The fact remains that evolutionary theory is an actual explanation for the diversity of life, and intelligent design is not.

[e=mc2]

Why though? None of this, even if taken as fact, would preclude a God in any way.

It is fact, and I absolutely agree with you LonP! This does not prove there is no God.

No scientist thinks evolution disproves every possible conception of God. That doesn't give intelligent design any explicative power, though. The fact remains that evolutionary theory is an actual explanation for the diversity of life, and intelligent design is not.

Amen and amen!!!

[littlechild]

This is so patently false I cannot even fathom someone saying this. I seriously suggest Ken Miller's outstanding book Finding Darwin's God. He shows the evidence. He shows the evidence.What a GREAT THREAD! Thanks all yous guys and gals for presenting your ideas! I amgoing to glean the comments here and use them as a way to produce my videos on evolution. THANK YOU! I'll let you know when I finish them up.

And finally, Michael Behe responds quite adequately to the flaws in Ken Miller's arguments here:

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_responsetokmiller0101.htm

Miller can't take a mousetrap, twist a few pieces of it, and claim, aha! This is no longer irreducibly complex, is it? IT's because he has interjected intelligent design into the process, something that Darwinism can't account for.

I'll let you read the rest of the article and come to your own conclusions, but my take on it is that Miller unwittingly uses intelligent design in an effort combat it - a losing proposition at best.

[ThePhy]

If you think its false, you have failed to listen. It's a simple science experiment, could have and should have been done by Darwinists long ago. If their theory had been correct, it should have been demonstrated to be correct. Yet the longer the experiment runs, the more it proves Darwin had it wrong.

Have you looked at the work of Dr. Lynn-Allen Hoffman of the Univ of Wisconsin? I suspect you might have difficulty convincing her that there have not been beneficial mutations.

Skin cells when removed from the human body die within hours, even when immersed in nutrients. Except for the ones that she found that had an unusual mutation â?? one that has not only kept them alive for almost a decade now, but allowed them to multiply and reproduce.

[littlechild]

O.K., sincerely..... I am absolutely seriously curious. What are you reading? Will you honestly share some ofthe sources you are reading for me so I can see where you are coming from and why you are so absolutely out of touch with scientific evidences and reality of evolution? This last week I have read 3 books (yes, I know, it's only Wednesday), and I find absolutely none of this silliness in them. NONE of it. Who, honestly are you reading?

Icons of Evolution

The Politcally Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

Darwinian Fairytales

Explore Evolution

Darwin on Trial

Darwin's Black Box

Intelligent Design 101

and various websites and blogs

[e=mc2]

littlechildWhen they answer, o, yes, we have overwhelming, irrefutable data that it happened, I look at the evidence they present very carefully, and in every case I find there are exactly zero beneficial morphological changes involved in their evidence. They are not proof of Darwinist theory.

I can't help it.....I simply don't believe you. Will you please share with me (even in a private email is fine) WHO you have done this with so I can talk to them? Miller, Dawkins, Gould, Eldridge, Asimov, Alters, Mayr, Isaak, Johnson (not the ID lawyer Philip either), Giberson. Pennock, Pigliucci, etc., have all shown the beneficial morphological changes that have occurred in evolution. I just cannot fathom you actually ignore the evidences.

Icons of EvolutionThe Politcally Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent DesignDarwinian FairytalesExplore EvolutionDarwin on TrialDarwin's Black BoxIntelligent Design 101and various websites and blogs

Ahhhhhhh, thank you. Why just one sided? Are you really interested in learning about evolution, or about the weird and wild interpretations these folks give it? Your reading is extremely biased and unbalanced. Now I know why you come to such illogical and unsupported claims. Thanks for sharing.

[littlechild]

Have you looked at the work of Dr. Lynn-Allen Hoffman of the Univ of Wisconsin? I suspect you might have difficulty convincing her that there have not been beneficial mutations.

Skin cells when removed from the human body die within hours, even when immersed in nutrients. Except for the ones that she found that had an unusual mutation – one that has not only kept them alive for almost a decade now, but allowed them to multiply and reproduce.

Hi, ThePhy.

This doesn't fly. It doesn't meet the real test. Skin cells staying alive? So ? That's nothing I don't already believe in myself.

Here's the thing. If dinosaurs became birds, they would have to develop wings and feathers. They would have to do more than keep their skins cells alive. Where in science do we find any experiments, let alone proof, that any species underwent or CAN undergo, a series of simultaneous changes to transform from a dino to a canary? The intermediate steps have to happen on multiple levels, simultaneously, they have to all provide a benefit to the organism, and they have to be functional.

We have no evidence of this anywhere in the fossil record. We have no science which shows that it CAN POSSIBLY be done. We have only the hope, the dream, the speculation that it could possibly have occurred somewhere. But the claims of evolution are that this sort of thing is ubiquitous amongst all living beings. And that it accounts for how we became separate species. All living things are supposedly related one to another, and this is supposedly ultimately mapped out in the correct Darwin's Tree of Life. So, today we have more phylogenetic trees than ever before, and they keep multiplying, and they keep getting more complex, but not a single one of them has any more scientific weight or authority than any other one. Do you see any problems with this ? I do.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

Sorry, we have to reject the fruit fly evolutionary experiments done, not by natural selection but in a laboratory. But that's not why we reject them. We reject them because they don't demonstrate a working evolution. The extra wings that fruit flies get through genetic modification are totally unusable and cause the fruit fly to live a shorter life.

Whose this uninformed "we" you tout?! WE *know* they prove evolution. You appear to me to have this weird and quirky approach that ONLY beneficial morphological changes is evolution. Can you show me *anywhere* in Darwin's own writings where he said that? Not your ID heroes, who have Darwin all wrong, but from Darwin himself? Gould? Asimov? Mayr? Isaak? Pennock? Can you show me ANY real evolutionary scientist who teaches this gross incorrectness?